3 ms·
That's exactly the wrong approach. Better approach: Install a small wireless sender in the car that broadcasts at a given frequency. Then allow people who wan
by gst 15y ago
That's exactly the wrong approach.
Better approach: Install a small wireless sender in the car that broadcasts at a given frequency.
Then allow people who want a minimum noise level to buy a small receiver that broadcasts those signals (or another type of indication signal) to a headset.
This allows you to keep the noise level down and at the same time provides "notifications" to the visually impaired.
- DrewG 15y agoThat puts the onus on the visually impaired and safety-conscious to protect themselves, and I don't think thats something you want to do.
- ceejayoz 15y agoNeat idea, but two significant problems. 1. Blind folks generally rely on directional sound. Knowing a car's nearby is better than nothing, but you can't tell how fast it's approaching you, from what direction. 2. In a city, it'd never stop beeping at you.
- gfodor 15y agoAlso, by forcing the purchase of a receiver for something that in some cases is vital safety information, you'll by definition have more accidents than you would if it were a real sound.
- gst 15y agoAnd at the same time you have less people dying because of the noise: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/23/sciencenews.uknews http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/23/sciencenews.uk...
- gst 15y ago1. The directional information is perceived due to the stereo sound. If you manage to give the location information to the receiver somehow it can generate the stereo sound appropriately. Maybe by using an ultrasound sender and receivers that are located near one's ears. 2. Beeping was just an example. Just "encode" the information as motor noise and it will sound more "natural".
- mostapha 15y agoHeadsets would also decrease your ability to hear other things. You'd hear the prius with the transmitter but not the real cars or other pedestrians or bicycles. Dumb idea.